Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reagan Conspiracy

How about the well researched, and most probable conclusion that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election. Therefore practically changing the outcome of the election by all accounts and causing Reagan to win. If Reagan hadn't done the negotiations Carter would have been hailed as a national hero, and would almost by all accounts win re-election.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.123.37 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

There are vastly too many ELs in this article. I will be removing them shortly, if no defense as to why so many are here, and how they conform with WP:EL is given. SDJ 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the number of links. But if you are to review them and order them (such as in the Ronald Reagan article), you might think about including this very good overview by the British academic & political commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor of the University of Oxford: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=809 Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi on Palestine (from Gandhi wiki article)

Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-factor

I factored out the Presidency section into Presidency of Jimmy Carter in order to follow the structure of other contemporary POFUS articles. The previous article size was about 140kb and now it is down to about 80kb so perhaps we can get this to be a GA again.--Spellage (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Public perception/public image

At inauguration in DC, when Jimmy Carter showed up on screen, I recall hearing people shout out things like, "An honest man!". Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all have "public image" sections and I thought Carter could use one too. How a President is remembered is easily the most fascinating aspect to me. It shouldn't be too hard to find articles, polls, etc... Anyone want to help out/get me started?--Loodog (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the presidency section so short?

A lot of key events happened during Carter's time in office. The section on his presidency needs to be expanded to discuss some of his policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.196.122 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Public image section

I removed a part about him being widely regarded as a better man than president. Loodog, you said that is verbatim in the article?? Thanks, --Tom 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "The main political beneficiary of the Watergate scandal, Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president."--Loodog (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a different article than the one I removed? Anyways, no biggie. Cheers, --Tom 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)ps, if you want to revert me, just include this link please, thanks, --Tom 13:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem was I typed everything up from a combination of sources and just cited everything at the end, so it wasn't really clear what came from where. I'll put it back in in a way that's more clear.:)--Loodog (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. --Tom 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Three Mile Island needs to be added.

I noticed that throughout the article, it was not at all mentioned what he did to stop the nuclear melt down at "Three mile island" and he should be given credit for it. Joey3r (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

Anyone interested in partnering up to improve this article to at least GA status (if not FA)? There's a plethora of good reference information available via the Jimmy Carter Library. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Carters image as a champion of democracy takes a knock when we look at Rhodesia. He persuaded Margarete Thatcher to join him in refusing to recognize the Salisbury agreement of 1980 because it was done without his involvement. He wanted to dismantle Rhodesia...and the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that followed the Salisbury agreement to get more votes from Americas black population who would mostly only know the Rhodesia as it was put to them, a very dishonest picture. The result was that nearly thirty years of tyranny, corruption and economic chaos under Robert Mugabe have followed. It did not win him the election after all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawitch Artist (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president

Is "Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president." appropriate for this article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds cutesy, but it's taken word-for-word from The Independent.--Loodog (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But does the Independent speak on behalf of the country? Could we say, "The Independent has referred to Carter as being a better man than he was a president." The article reads like a promotion and I can't find anything on the net that corroborates such a generalization. I'm also certain it violates strict BLP rules, but I don't feel like sifting through that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "Widely considered" does NOT mean "We The Independent, think he was a better man than a president,"; it means, "most people think he was a better man than a president." It is a statement about public opinion, NOT theirs.

It's well-sourced and it absolutely jibes with everything I know about people's opinions of him. What part of WP:BLP does it violate? How is it a promotion? It called him widely considered to be a bad president.--Loodog (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do statistics/polls support such a general statement? The Independent has referred to Carter being a better man than he was a president. And most importantly, the statement was made in a basic promotion/tribute article of his presidency. I believe we should consider this an opinion of The Independent and not the general public, as "widely considered" infers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Promotion/tribute? It was part of a series on all American presidents back to Rutherford B Hayes.

If you were old enough to remember Carter or know anyone who did, you'd know this is an absolutely true statement about his public image and not some outrageous fringe opinion. He was seen as weak, ineffectual, disorganized. The famous Jimmy Carter rabbit incident was a brilliant metaphor for his presidency. If you'd read any of the sources included [1] [2] [3], you'd have no question of this. I fail to see what is inadequate and even BLP-violating about a commonly known sourced statement of public sentiment.--Loodog (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP article hardly refers to Carter being considered a "better man" than he was a president. Plus, that source is almost 20 years old. Second source is not an RS and reads like it was written by a college freshman. The 3rd source is about Ford, not Carter. Again, I cannot find any source that corroborates Carter being a "better man" than he was president to such a general degree. Either we be more specific or write this off as original research, which it is IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. 20 years ago would be a perfect time to gauge the pubic opinion about a man who was president 28 years ago. Glad you finally accept it.--Loodog (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...is that all you would like to say? If so, I feel it is appropriate to rephrase or remove the sentence. Objections? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I need a little more specificity in understanding your objection. Do you take issue with (1) The Independent being a reliable source, or (2) that the Independent makes a statement about public opinion?--Loodog (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we remove the sentence or rephrase it according to the RS. The Independent did not provide statistics or polls to back up their claim. The Independent does not speak on behalf of the world population. Either we say, "According to several news sources (independent, whatever RSs you have - not the ones you showed, they are not pertinent), Carter is widely considered a better man yadda yadda yadda..." But "Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president" is an unverifiable generalization. Taking this out of a tribute post is bizarre, and if I had it my way it wouldn't even be in article to begin with. Do you need me to clarify more? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First elected from the Deep South since 48?

Trumam was from Missouri. Some people consider Missouri the South, but it is definately not the Deep South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.95.47 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the geographical location what makes it the deep south... Xmzx (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scaling of Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif

The thumbnail of the image "Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif" isn't scaled properly despite having the "thumb" tag. If you check the image properties of the thumbnail, it's still at a resolution of 600px × 409px. This makes the image look distorted and unprofessional. But I'm not sure how to fix it. Deepblue9000 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Carter leaves Southern Baptist Convention

"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God. I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. [...]" Jimmy Carter, Loosing my religion for equality

I think this is worth to be integrated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.139 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Every few months there's a new news story about Jimmy Cater "leaving" the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, Cater's only actions concerning the SBC happened almost a decade ago, and these new news articles are stale and have lost their newsworthiness. While the former president's religious views may be worthy of Wikipedia notability, it should be noted that the above suggested quote only appeared as new "news" sparked by a recent article from the London Observer, which was subsequently picket up in other British-influenced news agencies. (The citation above isn't even to the original article, only a syndication.) The problem with this quote, and with further reference to Jimmy Carter and SBC, is that Jimmy Cater was never a member or otherwise affiliated with the SBC in any way. The SBC has no membership and no means of individual affiliation on any level, whether formally or informally. (The SBC has member churches as well as employees for internal operations, but there is no level of membership or affiliation for individuals whatsoever. Carter himself was never an employee or other agent of the organization.) In essence, Carter's actions back in 2000 are nothing more than the former president's personal views on a particular denomination. Perhaps if there was a separate section on Carter's criticism of denominations, such quotes would be more appropriate. However, whatever the reference may be, it should be noted that there were never any "ties" to sever with the SBC; rather, Carter's merely announced his beliefs in conflict with a particular organization.

Finally, the above notwithstanding, I don't think that an op-ed piece written by an individual even remotely meets Wikipedia's citation standards. In essence, this is nothing more than an opinion letter to the editor of a newspaper. It happens to be an op-ed piece written by a former US president, but I don't think that justifies giving it more credence.168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reelection bid

The sentence in question reads: "Ultimately, the combination of the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation made it easy for Reagan to portray him as an ineffectual leader, causing Carter to become the first president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid."

I made a small change, adding the words to the end of the sentence: "after securing his party's nomination." Truman and LBJ both withdrew after poor performances in the primaries.

This was reverted by Unitanode because, "redundant; u can't lose the election UNLESS you win ur party's nom."

Fair enough. Except we were talking about "bids," not "elections." The purpose of this sentence is to show that Carter's 1980 loss was something that hadn't happened in 48 years. That would be interesting, if both Truman and LBJ didn't win renomination after making a reelection bid. But they did make those bids, and failed, if not lost. You can't keep both "lost" and "bid" in this part of the sentence. In light of Truman and LBJ, it's misleading. My correction removed the misleading angle, and now has been reverted.

I'd recommend removing the "1932 angle" altogether and simply say, "causing Carter to lose the national election." Or something like that. (Note from 7/31: I removed the angle altogether. Was Ford's 1976 loss a "reelection bid." In fact, Carter was the third of the previous four presidents to fail in a reelection bid.) Train60 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What was Carter's "Southern Strategy"

Carter won "the slave states" and kept the south solid after Nixon and before Reagan. Obviously he must have gone to some amazing lengths to stoke racism in the region. His "dog whistles" must have been positively audible. Any thoughts?

by the way, i am discussing the article. i think the article is incomplete without some attention to how he won the south. in all other wikipedia articles addressing electoral politics in the south, it is taken as axiomatic that the leading issue for voters there is race and racism and that candidates who win that electorate do so primarily by pandering to racist attitudes. clearly, since carter won every "slave state", this must also be true for his victory in the region. the article remains incomplete until something about carter's race-baiting strategy is at least touched on. - 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)]

here is a source to start with

Carter had run for governor at the time, in 1970, as a "redneck conservative," welcoming the support of segregationists and praising Maddox as "the essence of the Democratic Party."

Salon

He once attacked his opponent, Carl Sanders, for preventing George Wallace from speaking on state property. (Carter would later write to one constituent, "George Wallace and I are in agreement on most issues.") ... His campaign sent out a mailing featuring a picture of Sanders with two black basketball players—Carter's aides were later found passing out copies of this mailing at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Another campaign leaflet explained "that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."

claremont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.67.247 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009

This article is terrible

His term as Governor and after the Presidency are covered in fair detail. His presidency is less than an inch on my computer screen. This is terrible and unbalanced. This needs fixing. User F203 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I lived through the Carter Administration and think the "one-inch" segment about covers it. Face it, he did not accomplish much except place the U.S. in dire straits with the USSR, exhibited weakness in the Middle East and did nothing to strengthen the American economy. The failures of the Carter Administration are some explanation for Reagan's landslide victories. bf2002 talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the information during his presidency, specifically the economic issues need to be addressed, from inflation rates, interest rates, gasoline shortages, windfall profits tax (which decimated the oil exploration and production of the US) etc. Do you not remember the "its the economy" mantra that killed his re-election.70.167.47.106 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Future burial

The Honors and awards section says he intends to be buried in Plains. That is what he wants, but is the decision his to make? WP improver (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim regarding opposition to Obama

Earlier this month he claimed that much of the opposition to Obama is motivated by anti-Obama people believing that a black should not be President. His statement gained a lot of mainstream media coverage (abroad as well as in the US). Should it be included in the article? WP improver (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Carter's book

As Carter's book on Israel has been derided by his own former employees of the Carter Center and experts like Alan Dershowtiz the section should reflect that in that section.Tannim1 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is an expert in American criminal law. That doesnt mean he is an expert in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And many, many people have also lauded Carter's book. And the book has its own article and even responses to the book has its own article. This is a biography of Jimmy Carter and how Alan Dershowitz feels about a book Carter wrote is not a detail that is needed in this article. nableezy - 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Carter was a mediocre President what makes him an expert? Dershowits has written several books and unlike Carter gives a more balanced view. At first I thought you were trying to be helpful to a new user but it seems you have a PC agenda.Tannim1 (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt cite Carter on facts about the Middle East, but he does have one of these which your favorite "expert" lacks. Dershowitz is an expert in his own opinion on the conflict, not much else. But you didnt respond to what I wrote, just kept carrying on a pretend argument. What Dershowitz thinks about Carter's book is not relevant to a biography of Carter. nableezy - 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly would cite Carter as an expert on the Middle East. How many peace treaties for Israel has Dershowitz negotiated? Frankly, this whole section should be deleted as a talk page is not the place for substantive discussion of political issues. Academic38 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Id cite him for a history of the Camp David accords but as a primary source, and on other issues for his opinions, again as a primary source. But I would not cite him as I would a historian for statements of fact. And I dont have a problem with deleting the section as it was initiated by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet of a banned user. nableezy - 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz has written several books on the Israeli conflict, his latest The Case against Israel's enemies is sufficent as a source against Carter.Tannim1 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Ive removed Democratic Presidential Nominee 1976 & 1980 from the Infobox again, as Presidential Nominee 'is not' an office. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, can you imagine how long the Infoboxes at Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon would be, if we added the 5 times they've been on the Democratic & Republican tickets respectively? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Did Carter complete his Nuclear Technology course in 1953?

Rod Adams, Editor of Atomic Insights, asserts that Carter never completed that course. Perhaps the Wikipedia page should be revised to say he enrolled in the course, something everyone agrees on?

Source:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2006/01/picking-on-jimmy-carter-myth.html

Quoted text: "According to an old friend of mine who served as Rickover's personnel officer at Naval Reactors, LT Carter did not complete nuclear power school because of the need to take care of business at home."

It makes sense, if the course was six months, started in March, and he resigned in July (his official discharge date was in October). I doubt they would continue advanced and secret training on someone who was leaving, and he may have been home on hardship due to the death of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.124.239 (talk)

Blogs are not reliable sources, so this really could not go in the article. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel newspaper's article

This site: [Jpost] has an article from an Israeli newspaper against the American former President.Agre22 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Just a rant on the opinion pages, don't see how it would add anything of substance to the article. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Carter's Religion and his foreign Policy

Carter is a Baptist - has often registered as such, so that needs changing

There is no mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter gave a green light explicitly to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran on September 22, 1980 and told him he'd supply him satellite information through Saudi Arabia and that he could swiftly demolish the Ayatollah's regime in Iran, that would give back the hostages - get Jimmy Carter re-elected - and allow Saddam Hussein to recapture the areas of Khuzestan & Baluchestan and al-Shattab waterway (the Arab speaking territories) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

presidentprofiles.com a reliable source?

I have a hard time believing that this source, used three times, meets the standards of WP:RS. Though it appears to be connected to a highly-regarded presidential historian, Henry Graff, there is no sourcing on the website and a fair number of ads. It is used to support subjective opinions of President Carter, which IMO should be attributed to, for example, Graff's books, rather than this website. What do others think? Academic38 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

A small mention of the criticism Carter received from the ADL seems in order, at least to be consistent.--Jeffmaylortx (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The ADL noting what racist organizations happen to agree with some opinion of Carter's doesn't have the slightest bit of relevance to a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The ADL didn't just note it, it was quite concerned about it in a public manner. They provide extensive quotes from racist organizations supporting Carter. The whole issue is mentioned quite often in the media about Carter's attitude toward Israel the Jews quite often, and it was embraced by many racist groups. Surely that is worth a mention. If Clinton or Bush was being praised by neo-nazis enough to get the ADL's attention, I assume it would be mentioned.--Jeffmaylortx (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know quite well why they provided such "extensive quotes", and why it is being chosen for reproduction here; to tar an ex-president's support of Palestinian causes by drawing a "hey, the KKK has the same opinion as Jimmy Carter!" comparison. It is called a false analogy, and is a very poor basis for justifying inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Before you attempt again to insert connections between a living person and a racist organization, it would be wise for you to review policy on biographies of living persons. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Carter's Middle East Opinions and Funding

I've now attempted to add that Carter personally and the Carter Center have received significant funds from the Arabic sources, and that this is a criticism leveled at Carter's involvement in the Middle East. It has been deleted with comments such as "Caterwauling that Carter hates the Jews" and "not sourced." Two sources were provided, and the sources provided actual documentation regarding the funding issue. This appears to be editing to prevent criticism from being included in the article.

Suggestions for how to resolve without getting into an edit war?--Thalia42 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe opinions are not given equal footing with mainstream opinions, and your sources are poor and non reliable. There is nothing to resolve. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with an opinion does not make it a fringe opinion. The Washington Times, the Carter Center's own disclosures are not sufficient for you to acknowledge the issue? --Thalia42 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting that Washington Times is a poor source? Or the Carter Center itself? The sources for the funding are good. The criticism is opinion, obviously, but other opinions supporting Carter are in the article. So why do you delete the information about the financial links, sourced from the Carter Center itself?--Thalia42 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, have some sources:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/20/20061220-092736-3365r//print/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_59/ai_n17154284/

http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/Ex.htm

http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=24844

"Jimmy Carter loves the Arabs and hates the Jews" is about as fringey as one can get, it is not because I simply disagree with it. 3 OpEds a 1 bloviation by Dershowitz, a noted Carter critic, are not reliable sources. Merry Christmas. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Letter of apology to the Israelis

Does an argument really need to be made that this is "significant"? I mean, he's made the Middle East something of a pillar of his post-presidency, and his antagonism towards Israel has been noted for years. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are not blankets to shield articles from any recent events and developments. I'm reinstating it, as it doesn't violate BLP, is certainly notable, and seems to at least have a "consensus" of 2 to 1 for it right now. UA 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but that passage is (or was, as I remove it momentarily) one of the more disingenuous edits seen in these parts. IF Carter was doing a complete 180 and retracting his past Israeli criticisms, then, yea, that'd be a hugely monumental addition to the article, as it would be a repudiation of his past actions. But this? No, this isn't that. This is a "if you're offended by what I said, sorry, but I still stand by it" statement. CNN, and by extension, you, are blowing this out of all sensible proportion. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why would I take offense at having an edit called "one of the more disingenuous edits seen in these parts"? <rolls eyes> Seriously, do you know what al het means? It's a plea for forgiveness (according to the reliable source, which CNN still is, last I checked). That's what CARTER HIMSELF called his letter. This isn't even close to a violation of NOTNEWS or to a BLP violation. It's an important part of Pres. Carter's legacy, and I fail to understand why you're intent on keeping it out. It's reliably sourced, neutral, and completely relevant. Please explain yourself, sans your interpretation of Carter's apology, based only upon the facts. UnitAnode 04:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical, but not absolutely convinced of the negative, that this minor, passing statement by Carter will be of biographical significance. The statement might, conceivably, eventually rise to notability. However, we do not have a deadline on editing articles, and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have an exception clause "unless Unitanode thinks it's really important". Today, this is just today's news. If people are still talking about the letter a few months from now, let's discuss it then. This is by no stretch of the imagination a self-evidently biographically significant event. If Carter died, or got divorced, or won another Nobel Prize, or ran again for office, those types of events would indeed by obviously relevant, and could/should be reflected on the article the same day they happen. This one might reflect a slight change in nuance to Carter's opinions about conflicts in the Middle East (or they might not even be that), and that's about as much as it can possibly be. LotLE×talk 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc and Lulu -- this isn't a paradigm-shattering development, and absent any sustained long-term significance (to which we honestly can't attest at this time) this doesn't rise to an extraordinary level necessitating inclusion. Drop for now, revisit in ~6+ months. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is all a bit insane. "Revisit in 6+ months"? Would someone please explain to me, using policy and not personal opinion, what the basis for such a view is? He issued an al het, which was directly related to something that's been the centerpiece of his post-presidency, it's covered by a reliable source, is not controversial BLP-wise, and yet you three just aren't quite convinced it's really all that important?!? This is a bit like living in some strange episode of The Twilight Zone, only Wikipedia style. UnitAnode 14:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Public Image section

Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?

At Barack Obama’s inauguration, Carter appeared to greet former Republican President George H.W. Bush and his wife warmly, kissing Barbara Bush on the cheek. However, as Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each other’s presence at all. Clinton believed that Jimmy Carter cost him the gubernatorial election in 1980 and that “the peanut farmer was unfit for high office.“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This sentence refers to Carter twice, although the second reference is apparently to Clinton:

Carter has maintained working relationships with former Presidents Carter and George H. W. Bush, and despite their political differences the three men all have become good friends over the years while working together in a number of humanitarian and other projects.[62]

21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)peterwarn@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 (talk)

POV tag

This was added to the article, but no discussion was started in a new section to say why it was added. "Looking at talk page" is not a specific issue, and moreover, it appears the tag is simply an exercise in WP:POINT by an editor who failed to find consensus on a WP:NOTNEWSy addition. It's possible that there are one or two "seems" or "might"s that we could clean from the article (as the edit comment suggests), but that is nothing close to needing an article POV tag. So please explain the specific POV issues that you believe to exist. LotLE×talk 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I added the tag after reviewing this talkpage, and looking through the article. Stop the bad-faith accusations. UnitAnode 02:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues

1. Every piece of critical information is proceeded by "seeming" or "seems" or some other mitigating word. Compare this to other political articles, such as George W. Bush and others.
2. Simple additions of relevant, well-sourced, and completely uncontroversial material (such as the al het material) are full-court-pressed out of the article for some reason.
3. Good-faith editors proposing changes are attacked as POINT-y and disruptive.

These things need remedied before the tag is removed. UnitAnode 02:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see you admit explicitly above to placing the tag purely out of WP:POINT, i.e. because you don't like the comment style or edits of other editors, and want to punish the article for their actions. If that is the whole reason for the tag, it doesn't belong here. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, feel free to improve other articles too. LotLE×talk 09:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop the accusations. We need to deal with the issues. People erroneously cite OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is a guideline regarding arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, not when dealing with article content) all the time. You don't seem to know policy nearly as well as you think you do. You've now erroneously cited NOTNEWS, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and accused me of being POINT-y, without once ever dealing with the actual issues I've raised. Comparing the tone of two or more articles is very necessary when dealing with POV issues. I think you'll find that I'm a very reasonable editor on political articles, and am in no way "against" any particular political POV. I just have serious problems when articles seem to be either written like attack pieces or hagiographies, no matter which side is behind the particular POV. The tag will stay until there's some movement in the discussion on the underlying problems that led to its placement. UnitAnode 14:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of {fact} tags?

It seems to be walking a line here, Unitanode. You have placed a large number of {fact} tags in a couple recent edits. Within reason, those are helpful and useful, and clearly facts need to be cited. However, the random scattering of them is starting to look a lot like WP:POINT, in which you simply try to WP:DISRUPT the article because you were unhappy with an unrelated editing discussion. Excessive use of tags for facts that are not genuinely in any dispute becomes disruption (a rather frequent and obvious style of such). I'll take a closer look at those tags, but some of them are almost surely specious. Of course, adding citation yourself rather than simply trying to make the article worse is always helpful. Or otherwise, add them slowly and where most germane, rather than randomly next to every undisputed sentence. LotLE×talk 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not "walking a fine line" at all. Everything I tagged is unsourced, and should be cited. And do not accuse me of POINT-iness again. The POV tag is there for reasons which I've explained. Per policy, it should not be removed until concerns are addressed. UnitAnode 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you believe there are POV issues with the article, please state them! You have not done so, despite repeated requests to do so. All you have done is WP:DISRUPT the article to make a WP:POINT. Bad, bad, bad behavior! LotLE×talk 08:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've listed the three main issues. And you are going to stop accusing me of disruption and POINTiness. I'm quite sick of your bullying. UnitAnode 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• You've dealt with none of the three issues I raised, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Until you do, the tag remains. UnitAnode 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

History's Greatest Monster

There is a scene in a Simpsons episode where his statue is torn down and a voice in the mob claims he's "History's greatest monster". Surely this should be included in Pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.135.238 (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge

What kind of useless article is this? Carter is a recent US president yet there's only a single, very short section on the Presidency. This looks very unprofessional and leaves a bad impression on readers. I will be merging the subarticle Presidency of Jimmy Carter to this main article if there are no opposes in a week. While subarticles keep an article from getting too long, you have to use your brain and use WP:Summary style in the main article, which has clearly been ignored. The main article receives more than thirty times as many page views, so it only makes sense to actually have that vital information on the main article. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely do not do that! It seems like a very bad idea in general, but if you honestly think it somehow makes sense... well, first go read about WP:SUMMARY style. If that doesn't work, put up "proposed merge" tags and garner consensus before making such a change. LotLE×talk 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I certainly hope Reywas92 merely misunderstands what "merge" means on WP. The material in the Presidency article is far too long to incorporate into this article, and contrary to a merge it must remain a separate article. However, I do agree that the summary given here is a bit more concise than it needs to be. Adding a paragraph or two to the summary of the Presidency article would be very reasonable - while also probably trimming a few other areas, such as the Presidential Election section which is longer than a summary needs to be. LotLE×talk 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I know perfectly well what a merge is and have read WP:SUMMARY. The problem that the clueless person who originally split the article a year ago had absolutely no idea what he was doing. The article clearly does not use summary style, and sure as hell doesn't give WP:DUE weight to the most major part of his career. What must be done is to merge the information and then re-split into a subarticle. Adding a paragraph or two would do absolutely no good, and don't just cut from other areas!! This article is a complete joke with its lack of coverage about the presidency. The presidency section should make up the bulk of the article and have multiple sections. There can be a subarticle to expand on it, but the current state is terrible. By the way I did put up proposed merge tags and am trying to gather consensus, per this thread. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. With the clarification of intention by Reywas92, this is definitely my !vote on the topic (for the reasons discussed in my above comments). LotLE×talk 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I don't believe the two articles (Jimmy Carter and his presidency) should be merged because a lot happened in his presidency. It deserves a seperate article based on the large size of info and the significance.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter.

Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any likelihood of NGE material being incorporated into this article? If the consensus of the community is that it will not, I will note this on the NGE project page. bd2412 T 00:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The current article is very well documented and, on most issues, goes into greater detail that the Georgia Encyclopedia article. While your project may have value on other articles that are less developed, here I really don't see what "incorporation" would involve. As a tertiary source, I see limited value in any use of the Georgia Encyclopedia in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Alma Matter Should include Georgia Institute of Technology Jimmy Carter attended the Georgia Institute of Technology for roughly the same amount of time as Georgia Southwester, though it is not included in the Alma Matter section. He is one of our proudest alumni and I think it is imperative that we include this. Wingding313 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Economy

This article intentionally leaves out the economic situation under Carter. Wikipedia is becoming more useless and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.148.145 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge

We need to merge some of the stuff from the Presidency Article, because one paragraph on an entire presidency when his governorship gets more than five is inadequate. Still, we shouldn't merge all of it, because having a person page and a "Presidency of ..." Page is standard (See Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. I'll get to work on this now.

In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen (talk • contribs)

Edited section on military career

..since it was obviously written by a right-wing tool trying to disparage him. Antimatter33 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way, (AGF), but I checked your edit and concur with the deletion. It was poorly sourced material, and too much detail of his uneventful military career.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stray reference

I found a stray reference within Jimmy Carter#Further reading.

• <ref>https://www.reachandteach.com/ppjcstore/index.php?action=item&id=89&prevaction=pricelist</ref>

If it is useful please place it before {{Reflist}}. – allen四names 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not neutral, because there is no mention of the Criminal Conviction of the three largest Television Broadcasting Companies in the United States of America, beginning in 1979, and continuing throughout the 1980 Presidential Election. The conviction was upheld by the United States Federal Circuit Court, and again upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Any discussion of the 1980 Presidential Election must - as a matter of simple truth telling - include some reference to - or mention of - this Factual Criminal Conspiracy, to "defame the image of President Jimmy Carter" It is not an opinion, it is Historical Fact. ````LariatQ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by LariatQ (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

President Jimmy Carter

President Jimmy Carter Has Two Great - Grandsons,Not One Please Go Back And Clear That Up!.67.162.29.162 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

1980 Reelection campaign

Article needs a short section on the disasterous campaign for reelection in 1980. I have begun one. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

President Jimmy Carter

In The Infobox On President Jimmy Carter's Residence Plains, Georgia Should Also Be Included And It Should Read Something Like This, Residence: Plains, Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia Because They Split Their Time Between Those Two Cities And As I Understand It Right Now, They Have Two Great - Grandsons.67.162.29.162 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging Back into Main Article

I wondered where all the content had gone in the JC article. I also wondered who had "sanitized" the article removing much good, well sourced, objective information from it. Now it seems disjointed and weak... VERY deserving of the lowered rating the page has received. There were several of us who put a lot of work into making the main article very good a couple of years ago, and much of that work has been undone. Very SAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.222 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the summary is incorrect it'd be better to fix it rather than move the big Presidency of Jimmy Carter article back into this one.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the presidency article is about 8600 words long and this one is about 9100 words long (with about 500 words devoted to the presidency). Combined, that'd be around 17,000 words, which is much longer than any single article should be.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

very inaccurate to say "He became the first contender from the Deep South to be elected President since the 1848 election." Lyndon Johnson was from Texas..

very inaccurate to say "(Jimmy Carter) became the first contender from the Deep South to be elected President since the 1848 election." Lyndon Johnson was from Texas and elected 10 years earlier.

please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.237.189 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Try 12yrs earlier. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnson was already an incumbent President of the United States when he was first elected (or even a real contender for) President of the United States, if you'll recall. It's hardly an arcane point of our country's history. If you want arcane, Johnson did not run in any primary in his 1960 bid, seeking to earn electoral votes directly from party delegates rather than the electorate. The point is that Carter was the first from the Deep South to (go through a primary and major party nomination and run in the general to) win a job he didn't already hold. Abrazame (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether one was already President when first elected, is irrelevant here. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Johnson's incumbency is irrelevant is debatable; I tend to agree with Good Day on this. However, I distinctly remember a) Carter's candidacy being portrayed in the media in this way (first "Deep South" contender since the Civil War) AND b) the ensuing discussion in the media about LBJ and subsequent quasi-consensus that Texas did not constitute a part of the "Deep South" (for reasons which I did not understand then, nor do I fully now, other than Texas culture is very distinct from that of the George Wallace-Barry Goldwater electoral belt). HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

More information needed on the economy under Carter

I believe more details could be included on the economic situation during Carter's presidency. For example, in a quick search of the article, I found no references to unemployment and interest rates, three passing references to the energy crisis, two passing references to inflation and two passing references to stagflation. In other words, there are virtually no specifics on the economic situation that in combination with the Iranian hostage situation led to Carter's unsuccessful re-election bid. Allreet (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Look before you leap. Immediately after posting the above, I found that the Presidency of Jimmy Carter is a separate article and that it covers the issues I mentioned. I have two thoughts to add: The presidency article appears much too long to merge with the bio. Keeping them separate makes sense. The other thought is that many readers are going to miss the Presidency of Jimmy Carter link, as I did. I don't know what to suggest in terms of making the link more prominent, other than to locate it at the top of the bio article, provided this doesn't conflict with standards. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Context missing re Carter's amnesty for draft-dodgers

Carter gave amnesty to draft-dodgers who had fled to Canada. This was one of his first acts in office. However, Carter did nothing to welcome home, or assist, Vietnam veterans. So it wasn't just that Carter felt amnesty for draft-dodgers was important, but that he thought it was far more important than actually doing anything to assist those who had actually fought in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For starters, our article on the Vietnam War reads:

"The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" were signed on 27 January 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. A cease-fire was declared across North and South Vietnam. U.S. POWs were released."

That was during the second term of Richard Nixon, exactly three years and fifty-two weeks before Carter became president, so their welcome home or lack thereof would have been during the Nixon administraion. That article also reads:

"In the United States, South Vietnam was perceived as doomed. President Gerald Ford had given a televised speech on 23 April, declaring an end to the Vietnam War and all U.S. aid. Frequent Wind continued around the clock, as North Vietnamese tanks breached defenses on the outskirts of Saigon. In the early morning hours of 30 April, the last US Marines evacuated the embassy by helicopter, as civilians swamped the perimeter and poured into the grounds. Many of them had been employed by the Americans and were left to their fate."

That was in 1975 during the administration of Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency following the resignation of Richard Nixon. This was twenty months before Jimmy Carter took office. So their welcome home or lack thereof would have been during the Ford administration.

Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, so I'm unclear on which of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who served in Vietnam would have been returning home during Carter's presidency. Perhaps you would be interested in adding something about the presidential welcoming home of Vietnam veterans to the articles on Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, as again, these are the presidents who were in office when Vietnam veterans were returning home with or without welcome.

Would you care to cite a WP:Reliable source giving specific factual support to your assertion that Carter "did nothing to...assist Vietnam veterans"? What assistance that the three Vietnam-era presidents failed to provide were being proposed for veterans during the Carter administration which he ignored or vetoed? Or perhaps you're under the impression that there was assistance the three Vietnam-era presidents had provided which Carter rescinded or undercut? Don't misunderstand, I am not remotely making light of the plight of veterans in general or those during that particularly painful era, and obviously our responsibility to veterans extends their entire lives and not just the duration of the war they served. But you've got to bring more than hunch-based innuendo and a dodgy recall of dates to the table if you're going to asperse some subsequent president with the responsibility for whatever failings this country had toward that war's vets' welcome home. Abrazame (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Random vagueness

This article is awful. The part about his presidency sounds like some "folksy" children's tale. No mention of appointing Paul Volcker? Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.25.61 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read some WP:Reliable sources and make a suggestion of what you think is relevant to Carter's bio about his appointment of Volcker. Abrazame (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a new editor, so I don't know if I can edit this article. But I'm thinking that in the section about "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" it could say that some commentators have even accused Carter of anti-Semitism. [4] Snoid Headly (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) banned editor

If you'd care to read this article's section on that book, you'll perhaps find that it already notes such tactical posturing. Abrazame (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error

I believe I have noticed a grammatical error in the article, but do not have access to fix it. Whoever does have access to fix it, please do a search for the phrase "in at Guantanamo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedScourge (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it, Thanks for noticing it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more errors: 1. There's a photo of Carter with Bush. The caption reads, "18 years later, President of the United States of America, George W. Bush...." There shouldn't be a comma there after "America." 2. Under the "Author" section, a sentence reads, "The 2007 documentary film, Man from Plains, follows President Carter during his tour for the controversial book and other Humanitarian Efforts." There's no reason to capitalize "Humanitarian Efforts." 132.64.188.17 (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I made both of the recommended changes ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)